Nevin's Data "Points"

Critics of the 401(k) have moved way beyond mere bad-mouthing—and are now openly advocating actions that would undermine support for, and participation in, those programs. It started with criticism of the 401(k) itself—how it was “never intended” to be a primary source of retirement income—as though that precluded the possibility. There were the insinuations that later became outright claims that—despite evidence to the contrary—401(k) plan benefits were “ upside down ” and that tax benefits accrued only to the rich. Then reports—based on small samplings of data—that employer matching contributions didn’t really impact/influence contribution levels—and that the match was…“ unfair ”—or “ exploiting naïve myopic workers .” More recently, there was the  pining for the defined benefit plan design , even though it never really provided the level of benefits promised for most—and even though the vast majority of workers in the private sector  never even had that as an option —and even though

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” I’ve often wondered if then-President John F. Kennedy actually thought that goal was obtainable on May 25, 1961. Even as he spoke those words, [i]  he acknowledged that it would require “alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed,” not to mention funding for “other engine development and for unmanned explorations—explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight.” It was to be a magical time for our nation’s space program. There was a plan, three separate programs (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) to help us get there, and an aspirational vision—with an end date/deadline! There was also a sense of national urgency (the so-called “Space Race” with the Soviets, which was a lot les

Are you scared of retirement? Well, if you are, you have some company. And, at least according to one of those  click-bait survey headlines , 40% of some 800 individuals surveyed claim to be more afraid of retirement than … death. And more than half—52%—of those younger than 39 claim the same. Now, as silly as that seems, could those survey respondents simply be more ready to meet their maker than most? Now, as it turns out, they have some pretty concrete concerns about retirement—or more specifically what they are afraid they will lose; things like income and employment-based healthcare benefits. So, they aren’t scared of retirement, per se—but of the things they fear they will lose because of retirement. [i]   I get it. Anyone who has changed jobs, a home, even a boss—can appreciate a certain level of anxiety around the unknown—even when it’s a result of your choice. And when it’s not?        Despite that level of concern, this is a group in which two-thirds (68%) think that Social S

Anyone who has ever found their grand idea shackled to the deliberations of a committee, or who has had to kowtow to the sensibilities of a recalcitrant compliance department, can empathize with the process that produced the Declaration of Independence we commemorate this week. Not that the machinations of a plan committee can be fairly equated to the deliberations—or impact—of the Second Continental Congress, but there are some parallels. Things like… Committee members should understand their obligations—and the risks. Those who gathered in Philadelphia that summer of 1776 came from all walks of life, but it seems fair to say that most had something to lose. True, many were merchants (some wealthy, including President of Congress John Hancock) already chafing under the tax burdens imposed by British rule, and perhaps they could see a day when their actions would (eventually) accrue to their economic benefit. Still, they could hardly have undertaken that declaration of